From: Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/10] makedumpfile: cyclic processing to keep memory consumption. Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:36:11 +0900 > Hello HATAYAMA-san, > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:23:59 +0900 (JST) > HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > [...] >> >>> Hi Atushi san, >> >>> >> >>> Good to see this work making progress. I have few queries. >> >>> >> >>> - Do you have some numbers for bigger machines like 1TB or higher memory. >> >>> I am curious to know how bad is the time penalty. >> >> >> >> I'm afraid that I don't have such a large machine, so I need someone who can >> >> measure execution time in large machine. >> >> >> > >> > I can prepare such machine but I cannot say I can use the machine on >> > this day precisely for example. But I think it must be until the end >> > of this month at most. So, I would like to fix content of benchmark >> > first. >> > >> >> Hello Kumagai-san, >> >> I'm now trying to reserve the machine with big memory, but I'm not >> accurately sure when I can use the machine; expecting within this >> month? In advance, I want to make sure what I measure in this >> benchmark in more detail. > > OK, I'm glad for your help. > >> I'm going to collect at least what you showed in your benchmark: RSS >> size for no option, -cd31 and -Ed31. Is there another to collect? > > Would you collect RSS also for --split ? > While I expect the RSS will be increase based on number of child processes, > I want to see measured data. > Yes, I'll collect RSS information. But due to COW, child processes share parent process's memory until they modify their memory, so simply looking value of RSS is not enough. We need to measure size of shared part e.g. by looking at /proc/<PID>/smaps. And, what version of makedumpfile should I use for this bench? If you have additonal changes locally, it might be better to use the version. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke
